Bristol Taurus fighter engine mods? (3 Viewers)

Admiral Beez

Major
10,217
11,857
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Location
Toronto, Canada
If the Bristol Taurus (shown below on an Fairey Albacore) was considered for fighters, perhaps as a successor to the Perseus (and precursor to the Hercules), what mods are needed? I assume the Taurus' low-altitude single-stage supercharging will need to be modified. What else?

1790862568001.png
 
It has been suggested in earlier threads and much made of the CoG concerns over the far greater weight of the Hercules but it looks to me that, if you can relocate the assorted gubbins behind the engine and before the firewall/forward bulkhead, the the whole engine might be mounted much further back and reduce the CoG issue.

However, closer to the OP, the Hercules maxed out at @2000bhp so, for the Taurus that translates to @1450bhp by comparative capacity. That makes sense with the Hercules as a twin Perseus and the Taurus as a twin Aquila. The special Aquila used in the Vickers Venom prototype was 650bhp which translates into 1,300bhp.

The obvious model is doing much the same to the Taurus as was done to the Hercules IOTL including the input from Napiers.
 
If the Bristol Taurus (shown below on an Fairey Albacore) was considered for fighters, perhaps as a successor to the Perseus (and precursor to the Hercules), what mods are needed? I assume the Taurus' low-altitude single-stage supercharging will need to be modified. What else?

View attachment 897408
The Bristol Taurus was offered as a fighter engine in 1939.

Fairey tendered designs for Spec N.8/39 & N.9/39 offering 4 engine choices:-
RR Griffon - 1,600 bhp at take off, 1,445 at 15,000ft. AUW 10,775lbs
Fairey Queen - 1,320 & 1,170 AUW 9,975lbs
RR Boreas (aka Exe) - 1,150 & 950. AUW 9,570lbs
Bristol Taurus - 1,200 & 1,170. AUW 9,355lbs

Four other companies made submissions but I don't have details. None of the proposals were found acceptable and everyone went back to the drawing board. Eventually the Firefly emerged from the process.

The very earliest Blackburn proposal around the same time for what eventually became the Firebrand was based around the Hercules.
 
I assume the Taurus' low-altitude single-stage supercharging will need to be modified. What else?
Main thing is to throw the cylinders and heads out and start over. There were a couple of prototype engines used the Gloster twin that disappeared after the crash and never came back again. The Service engines had a lot of trouble overheating and if the engines are overheating at 3000ft trying to make good power (1200hp?) at 15,000ft and up is going to be very, very difficult in the thinner air.
The Taurus was not a precursor to the Hercules, it was concurrent. Delaying the Hercules to work on the Taurus would definitely have been a bad discission.
The Hercules didn't make 2000hp in WW II until the very end. Assuming you can match the power of a Hercules VI running on 100/130 fuel in high gear at 15,500ft of 1545hp that means the Taurus would be good for about 1014hp at that height. Adjust as needed for slightly rpm or other things? Hercules VI was already using 8.25lbs of boost to hit this power level.
It seems like a lot of hoops to jump through for not much result.
 
A mod that would've helped with the Taurus becoming a half-decent engine for not just a fighter would've been a better supercharger, preferably with a 2-speed S/C. With hi-oct fuel, some luck and a lot of development and testing, it might've mimic the Ha 102 engines from the Zuisei family, that gave 950-1050 HP at high or low altitudes, respectively.
OTOH, betting on a 1000 HP engine in the time 1500-2000 HP engines are on the test benches would've not been seen as a good thing to do by the people making the decisions.
 
Makes one wonder why Bristol bothered. More government money I suppose. Is a jump from Perseus to Hercules unrealistic?

Bristol should have thrown out the sleeve valve idea and made their own 30L twin row sodium valve engine.
There were sound reasons for sleeve valves when the projects began. However further developments in fuels and poppet valve materials made deep inroads into the differences in the meantime but, when Bristol settled on the sleeve valves, they had still not eradicated the benefits that sleeve valves were to bring. Bristol manufacturing was committed to the sleeve valve in materials, machinery and tooling. By the end of the war the Hercules had become a sound 2,000bhp engine with long servicing intervals and reliability and went on being used in post war civilian aeroplanes and in licence production abroad. I agree that, with our hindsight, something along the lines of a double Pegasus would have been a better choice but, at the point of decision, it would not have been able to make the power that the Hercules eventually made even if we look at Alfa Romeo's try at a double Pegasus. The sleeve valve at that time promised to get past the inherent limitations found in period poppet valve engines. I note that the Hercules suceeded in the civilian market post war whilst the Rolls Royce Merlin did not. I also note that the last Rolls Royce Eagle 24 cylinder of 1944 was also sleeve valved.

However, the Taurus by 1940 was simply too small and any serious attempt at enlarging it would just be making a small Hercules in practice.
 
The Hercules got a substantial redesign in the 200 series. This included new main bearings with larger diameter rollers in the rolling bearings, Only the new power section was rated at 2000hp or close to it. It was an amazing achievement but effective use was post-war. 1938-39 Bristol was having trouble meeting the late 30s promises for the Hercules and the Taurus predictions were wishful thinking at best.
In 1925 the sleeve valve had a lot to offer. In 1930 not so much. In 1935-35 many of the advantages only existed in the minds of the Bristol engineers. Or to be a bit kinder the sleeve valve advantages did exist and were coming to fruition. The problem was that most of the poppet valve problems had been solved closing the gap between the sleeve valve and poppet valve.
Unfortunately, a double Mercury or double Pegasus would have been rather bad engines. Bristol did the bare minimum to bring their poppet valve engines into the 30s. They may have given good power and been somewhat durable, but they required a crap load of maintenance. Bristol still relying of grease guns for valve train lubrication. Spark plug change may have been easy but having 36 valves to adjust on a 9 cylinder engines was a bit much for the power you got.
Bristol always touted their sleeve advantages over their own poppet valve engines. They never compared them to P&W and Wright in public.
 
Unfortunately, a double Mercury or double Pegasus would have been rather bad engines. Bristol did the bare minimum to bring their poppet valve engines into the 30s. They may have given good power and been somewhat durable, but they required a crap load of maintenance. Bristol still relying of grease guns for valve train lubrication. Spark plug change may have been easy but having 36 valves to adjust on a 9 cylinder engines was a bit much for the power you got.
They needed a British competitor for radial engines. Unfortunately Armstrong-Siddeley wasn't up to the task. The failed 1,000hp, 39L Alvis Pelides looks interesting. Having a monopoly on the type may have help to lead Bristol down harebrained paths. All they had to do in the early 1930s was buy a P&W engine, tear it down and exclaim, "Dammit Roy (Fedden), your sleeve valve nonsense is now off the table."
 
Last edited:
They needed a British competitor for radial engines. Unfortunately Armstrong-Siddeley wasn't up to the task. The failed 1,000hp, 39L Alvis Pelides looks interesting. Having a monopoly on the type may have help to lead Bristol down harebrained paths. All they had to do in the early 1930s was buy a P&W engine, tear it down and exclaim, "Dammit Roy (Fedden), your sleeve valve nonsense is now off the table."
At Bristol, the sleeve valve pain and suffering was in the thirties. Did the sleeve valves cause problems for Bristol during the war? As already noted, the Taurus was too small to be a good WWII fighter engine. The Hercules had way more possibilities.

I am not aware of serious development problems with the Centaurus, especially compared to the Napier Sabre. Feddon was trying to manufacture them in Canada in 1940.
 
Did the sleeve valves cause problems for Bristol during the war?
Unnecessary complexity in design, production and maintenance over the otherwise near-universally fielded ohv cannot have helped. It's the opportunity cost that we'll never know.
 
At Bristol, the sleeve valve pain and suffering was in the thirties. Did the sleeve valves cause problems for Bristol during the war?
There were problems in 1939 and early 1940 (?).
A major problem was low production to start with. The Air Ministry certainly wanted Hercules engines for Beaufighters, Stirlings and Wellingtons (and other aircraft) but the shortage of Hercules engines in 1939-40-41 led to the Merlin powered Beaufighters and Wellingtons. Only Beaufighters flew with Hercules engines into combat in 1940 with about 100 planes distributed 5 fighter Command squadrons and 6 planes to No 252 Squadron of Coastal command. Wellingtons also got R-1830s and both Stirling factories got bombed in Aug 1940 which lowered demand for the Hercules in much of 1940/1941 (first squadron mission was Feb 1941 and only 3 squadrons used Stirling's in 1941). First combat mission with Hercules powered Wellingtons was in early 1941, The lowered demand was still too much but the Hercules production went up considerably in 1942 (or late 1941?) and improved versions started showing up in 1941/42.
The Hercules had way more possibilities.
Possibilities were untaped for much of 1940-41. They were trying and things got a lot better with the Mk VI. Hercules engine marks jump around a bit.
I am not aware of serious development problems with the Centaurus, especially compared to the Napier Sabre.
Different timelines. The Centaurus was basically put on hold during 1940 and 1941 while Bristol kept working at a slow pace and used some of the things they were learning with the Hercules they were able to come up a more serviceable engine before committing to combat/squadron service. Sabre was committed to combat before it was really ready, in part due the failure of Vulture.
Feddon was trying to manufacture them in Canada in 1940.
This went nowhere. It also would have depended very much on the supply of machine tools from America. Since the US was trying to expand it's aircraft engine manufacturing by about a factor 3 every year from 1939 on supplying a major factory in Canada might not have gone well. As mentioned above, the Centaurus was not really a production ready engine in 1940. Perhaps it could have been in late 1941 or 1942 when a new factory could have actually produced engines. How many months from breaking ground on a factory to making engines at over 10 a month?
 
There were problems in 1939 and early 1940 (?).
...
I have Bill Gunston's book Development of Piston Aero Engines here. In it, he points out that all of the important engines of WWII were running prior to the war. It takes five years or more to develop and manufacture a working engine, even if your technology is conventional. Some very good aircraft were designed over a few months. Blind, screaming panic did not work with engines.
 
The Hercules was developed, in stages, into a very good engine or excellent engine. The Problem in many "what if" scenarios is assuming that the later versions could be developed much faster or that the Hercules was a ready to go engine in 1939/40. Or ready to go at 1500-1600hp levels.
When Bristol was only making a few engines a month or even a few engines per week they worked pretty well. Problems really came up when they tried to make dozens of engines per week. Yes they got the problems fixed but it took a while.
There are proposals for aircraft in 1937-38 that call for 1500hp Hercules engines (altitudes not given) There lots of proposals for aircraft using engines under development that ran late or didn't work. Bristol had problems reaching the 1500hp goal. They got there with Mark VI engine using 100/130 fuel but they had to change several things. You could run some of the older engines on 100/130 fuel (maybe change spark plugs?) but you could not use the boost levels the Mark VI could and at the lower boost levels the older engines were pretty much 1400hp or below engines. The Mark VI got to 1615hp for take-off and 1750hp at 6,500ft using 8.5lbs of boost. It picked up around 300hp at 15,000ft.
Bristol ran into cooling problems with the Hercules and Taurus engines. To be fair so did P&W and Wright. The R-2800 was limited to 2000hp max regardless of fuel used or type of supercharger used until late 1944 unless it used water injection. It was already using around 1 gal per minute of fuel to cool the engine by running super rich.
Radial engines often had to redesign the crankshaft and crankcase to handle higher powers. No shame for Bristol there. But using 1944-46 power levels in a 1940-42 scenario tends to overlook the time and effort it took. Air cooled engines very seldom could just pour in better fuel and tweak the boost limit.

Getting back on subject a bit (Taurus engine) there were a number of 1937-39 proposals for planes using 1250hp Taurus engines interchangeably with early Merlins. The 1250hp Taurus engines never seemed to show up. The 3300rpm limit was never reached and the max power rating used in service was 1130hp at 3,500ft using 100/130 fuel. Even using a two speed supercharger is not going to save it. Assuming that the higher gear in the supercharger takes up 100hp you now have a 1030hp engine at whatever altitude the two speed supercharger gives you, but you are still making the same amount of power (heat) in the cylinders and in thinner air the cooling problem just got worse. Maybe it can be solved but with limited manpower (engineers) why are you working in a 1000-1100hp engine instead of the Hercules or the Centaurus?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back